This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexual Rights
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
452972
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
448495
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I knew a homosexual rights conversation would devolve into a religious debate, because only christians don't want to allow other people to get married.
Blatant generalizations and assumptions will get you nowhere.
Post by
Deepthought
Law makers in several states have decided that gay marriages shouldn't be allowed, yet you deny that. You totally dodged the point.
Hm yes, because someone's gay, they do not have the mental capacity to understand marriage or what it involves etc.
Because that's the reason for the age-of-consent law.
It's not the reason for the gay marriage law, however.
I'm a practicing, religious Roman Catholic; care to point me to a single one of my posts here that wasn't logical? Don't discount people just because they are religious, just like I don't just discount you because you're not.
Comparing gay marriage to underage sex, for one.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Law makers in several states have decided that gay marriages shouldn't be allowed, yet you deny that. You totally dodged the point.
Hm yes, because someone's gay, they do not have the mental capacity to understand marriage or what it involves etc.
Because that's the reason for the age-of-consent law.
It's not the reason for the gay marriage law, however.
I'm a practicing, religious Roman Catholic; care to point me to a single one of my posts here that wasn't logical? Don't discount people just because they are religious, just like I don't just discount you because you're not.
Comparing gay marriage to underage sex, for one.
Again I think you totally missed the point. The age of consent is 16 in Minnesota, but 18 in Florida. It's some arbitrary number that lawmakers have thrown out. If you're going to use the "pursuit of happiness" argument, you can't get around the fact that many of our laws already deny that principle.
Secondly I never compared the two. If that were the case then you'd have to also say that I was comparing it to murder and cannibalism. All I was doing was giving example of laws that explicitly deny the principle of "pursuit of happiness."
If you really believe that laws cannot be made that arbitrarily discriminate against sexual orientation, I honestly don't see how you can be for laws that
do
arbitrarily discriminate against 16- and 18-year-olds.
And taking things out of context
is
a logical fallacy.
Post by
Deepthought
The age of consent is 16 in Minnesota, but 18 in Florida. It's some arbitrary number that lawmakers have thrown out.
What number would you throw out, then?
If you're going to use the "pursuit of happiness" argument, you can't get around the fact that many of our laws already deny that principle.
What's your point?
What if it'll make me happy to cannabalize dead bodies (it's not like it's hurting their happiness)? To take a very extreme example
If that were the case then you'd have to also say that I was comparing it to murder and cannibalism.
Who mentioned murder?
If you really believe that laws cannot be made that arbitrarily discriminate against sexual orientation, I honestly don't see how you can be for laws that do arbitrarily discriminate against 16- and 18-year-olds.
I never said I was. I'm just pointing out that there are reasons, no matter how foolish, for the age of consent, that make some kind of sense. No such reasons exist for the denial of gay marriage.
And taking things out of context is a logical fallacy.
Example?
Post by
160451
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The age of consent is 16 in Minnesota, but 18 in Florida. It's some arbitrary number that lawmakers have thrown out.
What number would you throw out, then?
I wouldn't throw out a number. I don't believe the government has the right to interfere with
anyone's
sex life, gay or not. (As I said earlier I'm on your side).
If you're going to use the "pursuit of happiness" argument, you can't get around the fact that many of our laws already deny that principle.
What's your point?
That you're arguing from a double standard if you argue for gay rights, but against all these other things I've mentioned based on the "pursuit of happiness" principle.
What if it'll make me happy to cannabalize dead bodies (it's not like it's hurting their happiness)? To take a very extreme example
If that were the case then you'd have to also say that I was comparing it to murder and cannibalism.
Who mentioned murder?
I did
, and it would seem loud music falls under the same category, eh?
If you really believe that laws cannot be made that arbitrarily discriminate against sexual orientation, I honestly don't see how you can be for laws that do arbitrarily discriminate against 16- and 18-year-olds.
I never said I was. I'm just pointing out that there are reasons, no matter how foolish, for the age of consent, that make some kind of sense. No such reasons exist for the denial of gay marriage.
So, it becomes ok to make laws against something if we think up a couple "foolish" reasons why it's wrong? Cause I can think up a couple right on the spot.
And taking things out of context is a logical fallacy.
Example?
Comparing gay marriage to underage sex, for one.
Post by
Deepthought
I wouldn't throw out a number. I don't believe the government has the right to interfere with anyone's sex life, gay or not. (As I said earlier I'm on your side).
Peadophiles.
I did, and it would seem loud music falls under the same category, eh?
Uh ok. I didn't quote or say anything about that, because it was in....a different context.
So, it becomes ok to make laws against something if we think up a couple "foolish" reasons why it's wrong? Cause I can think up a couple right on the spot.
There is foolishness and there is down-right-ignorance. Foolish laws have some, however small, upside. Ignorant laws do not.
P.S.
What if it infringes upon my happiness if I know two men are legally allowed to "do it"?... ...why isn't someone under 18 allowed to have sex with someone over 18? Yes it might prevent some / a lot of child molestation, but the ones who are doing it of their own free will are being denied the pursuit of happiness.
They are even in the same paragraph. You cannot seriously claim you were not attempting to make a comparison.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I wouldn't throw out a number. I don't believe the government has the right to interfere with anyone's sex life, gay or not. (As I said earlier I'm on your side).
Peadophiles.
I'm a libertarian, I don't believe that falls under the government's jurisdiction. But that's a different issue entirely.
I did, and it would seem loud music falls under the same category, eh?
Uh ok. I didn't quote or say anything about that, because it was in....a different context.
Nope, same context. Read them both again, plus the replies in between if you don't believe me.
So, it becomes ok to make laws against something if we think up a couple "foolish" reasons why it's wrong? Cause I can think up a couple right on the spot.
There is foolishness and there is down-right-ignorance. Foolish laws have some, however small, upside. Ignorant laws do not.
You're dodging the point again. If you're basing your argument on a legal principle, you'd better make sure you accept all the ramifications that principle implies.
P.S.
What if it infringes upon my happiness if I know two men are legally allowed to "do it"?... ...why isn't someone under 18 allowed to have sex with someone over 18? Yes it might prevent some / a lot of child molestation, but the ones who are doing it of their own free will are being denied the pursuit of happiness.
They are even in the same paragraph. You cannot seriously claim you were not attempting to make a comparison.
I'm sorry, but reading comprehension is something taught in most schools. Let me put up the entire context:
...isnt one of our natural rights the pursuit of happiness and for some that pursuit is romance with the same sex...
That's faulty reasoning. Murder makes serial killers happy. Playing loud music at night makes my neighbors happy. You can't leave your argument as it stands, a couple more steps might do it.
(btw you cant really use the murder example even though I forgot infringe since the set im taking this from includes life :P)
...What if it infringes upon my happiness if I know two men are legally allowed to "do it"? What if it'll make me happy to cannabalize dead bodies (it's not like it's hurting their happiness)? To take a very extreme example (Please don't twist my words here, I'm just making a hypothetical argument): why isn't someone under 18 allowed to have sex with someone over 18?
So what should you get from this? That I'm listing possible cases that seem to contradict the principle of "pursuit of happiness." l listed the first two, then he corrected his arguement, so I listed 3 more that his addendum didn't catch.
And further you'll notice that the example I give involves the knowledge of homosexuality, not the homosexuality itself.
And taking things out of context
is
a logical fallacy.
Post by
Deepthought
You're dodging the point again. If you're basing your argument on a legal principle, you'd better make sure you accept all the ramifications that principle implies.
No I'm not? I'm pointing out that you're attempting to lump two entirely different qualites of laws together.
FYI: That principle is "Some laws have negative ramifications that are worth the trouble caused because of their positive ones."
That I'm listing possible cases that seem to contradict the principle of "pursuit of happiness."
That are entirely out of context within this arguement because they involve potential harm caused to people, not caused by the person themself. I'm talking about statatory rape and the possible health risks involved with cannibillisim.
The only problem you can have with homosexuality is self-inflicted, they don't make you hate them.
And further you'll notice that the example I give involves the knowledge of homosexuality, not the homosexuality itself.
Ohh yay, semantics! If you didn't know about the homosexuality, how could the homosexuality itself sadden you? It is entirely the knowledge of homosexuality that presents the "problem" here.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And further you'll notice that the example I give involves the knowledge of homosexuality, not the homosexuality itself.
Ohh yay, semantics! If you didn't know about the homosexuality, how could the homosexuality itself sadden you? It is entirely the knowledge of homosexuality that presents the "problem" here.
This actually shows that you don't know the religious anti-homosexuality argument. Catholics and those Christians who are against homosexuality are against it because in their philosophy it is "an intrinsic evil." Whether you know about it or not has no bearing on it.
Post by
Deepthought
Catholics and those Christians who are against homosexuality are against it because in their philosophy it is "an intrinsic evil." Whether you know about it or not has no bearing on it.
If they didn't know of homosexuality in modern times, or it was not proclaimed as a "intrinsic evil" in the bible, they wouldn't "need"(/want) legislation against it. As I said, semantics.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Catholics and those Christians who are against homosexuality are against it because in their philosophy it is "an intrinsic evil." Whether you know about it or not has no bearing on it.
If they didn't know of homosexuality in modern times, or it was not proclaimed as a "intrinsic evil" in the bible, they wouldn't "need"(/want) legislation against it. As I said, semantics.
I honestly don't know why you're throwing the term "semantics" around as if it had anything to do with the Catholic/Christian understanding of homosexuality. And I am I understanding the first sentence right: "If it weren't a precept of Christianity, then then wouldn't be acting against it"? Well, obviously...the whole reason they are against it is because it is a precept.
The more you talk about it the clearer it becomes that you don't understand the religious argument. Don't try to argue against something you don't understand.
Post by
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
42080
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Deepthought
And I am I understanding the first sentence right: "If it weren't a precept of Christianity, then then wouldn't be acting against it"? Well, obviously...the whole reason they are against it is because it is a precept.
Well, no, not at all actually (I was pointing out a problem with your sentance structure, I really didn't plan for this to become a main debating point but since you seem to be quote mining...), but lets run with your idea of my arguement since it allows me to bring up an important point;
Namely, there are plently of parts of the bible and/or religious canon (depending on denomination) that are accepted as unapliccable in modern society, so why not homosexuals getting married?
Anyone saying religious people need to be open minded to gays well you need to be open minded to religious people. It goes both ways, I'm sick of seeing everyone call religious people closed minded when they're being just as closed minded for not trying to see where the religious people are coming from.
Following this logic, calling anyone, ever, "close-minded" makes a person close minded, which is not the case.
Deepthought, reading over some of your posts in here, you seem to be foaming at the mouth....
What's that you say? Someone getting a little angry over an issue, in a debate? Why, I must make a witty remark while contributing nothing to the debate! HUZZAH
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.